You must like Iowa then because you obviously don't like Gonzaga. Who wins in a USC vs Iowa matchup. I originally had Oregon vs USC, but changed it. I am just not sure the Pac 12 is that good.
Lunardi’s latest bracket
- Thread starter unihorn
- Start date
Baylor isn’t playing their best ball now like they were before COVID hit their team. They’re going to have to wake up fast.
I dont think Iowa plays good enough D. They're very unathletic. I really like USC in a format like this. In a best of series I wouldn't pick them to beat Gonzaga, but in one game I believe what they do travels well against Gonzaga's style of play. Mobley is going to have a monster game against them.
You may want to re-evaluate the Big 10. I told you earlier that I felt your assumption that it was such a strong conference was a bad one.
Lol, because they lost a few games. That's just silly. There are upsets every year because the is setup for teams to get hot. Other than Michigan State every single one of those teams would win in a best of seven series going away.
College basketball has never played a best of series so that is completely irrelevant. Oral Roberts and North Texas are not powerhouse programs, and yet Ohio State and Purdue can beat Gonzaga? That makes a ton of sense.
You know how the tournament is, one and done and you had Ohio State in your final 4. So making some excuse that they will win a 7 game series is ridiculous. So why would you handicap based on a series?
And the Big 10 didn't just lose a few games, 1/3 of their bloated overrated 9 teams can't even get by the first round. It is typical for that conference though, since they haven't won a title in 21 years and they keep shoving them in.
Last edited:
Your running out of teams. Another potential Gonzaga beater (according to you) bites the dust.
The Big 10 is exactly what I said, a completely overrated conference that gets preferential treatment based on name only. They have a bloated Strength of Schedule because they play each other and they are all overrated, which skews the numbers.
Ohio State and Illinois were in your Final 4. Again, you can keep making excuses for the Big 10, but there is a reason that conference hasn't won since 2000.
Got it! One game constitutes an entire season! You're so right how could I have been so stupid to disagree with you!
Shoot, add another Big 10 team to fall, Wisconsin. How many are left in the conference that you throw all your adulations on?
And we don't care about the season, obviously because the Big 10 are champions of the regular season and no where else.
Gonzaga may fall, which I doubt, but it has no comparison to the absolute dreadful results from the Big 10 as a whole. I would even go as far as saying I don't think those games they lost were upsets. The Big 10 just sucks.
The tournament always has upsets. That's what the format is setup for. Have you ever even played basketball before? Also, I don't know why you think I love the big 10. I don't give two poops about them. I just know it's a better conference than what Gonzaga plays in. Beyond that you're reaching bro.
Wow, that is really going out on a limb saying the Big 10 is better than the WCC.
And yes, you had all the Big 10 schools matching up with Gonzaga, so yes, you said they were better than undefeated Gonzaga. Well, if you can't get by Oral Roberts and Loyola, you sure as hell aren't going to beat Gonzaga. Your final 4 was filled with Big 10 schools. Your praise that they play so physical that Gonzaga has no chance.
The capper was that you said you watched Gonzaga play 7 times and they weren't that good. Oh, ok, and everyone has watched the Big 10, and they are dreadful.
By the way, yes, and that is completely irrelevant again to anything that is being posted here. You have handicapped your teams horribly. You keep talking about 7 game series, and playing basketball. Who cares, both are irrelevant. I told you over and over your assumption that the Big 10 was a great conference was wrong, and if my assumption was true that it was not, these results would dictate it as beating up on other overrated teams proved nothing.
If you bet the games and teams you were talking about so highly on here, you lost your ass. I can see you yelling after the loss and saying, "But in a 7 game series.....", and I played competitive basketball." Now I know why you don't do a bracket.
The way you are talking the national champion is never the best team. Whoever you say is the best team even if they lose in the first round because they did not play a 7 game series. It is what it is and your handicapping has to adjust to that. Not based on something that has no relevance.
During your time playing competitive basketball did you ever lose to a team that you were clearly better than?
Also, the NCAA tournament is not set up to find out who the best team is. It's set up for TV entertainment. Basketball always has upsets in it, because all it takes is for one player to get hot.
All the UTEP losses to clearly inferior teams can be blamed on those opposing players that turn into Kobe whenever they play us.
I always thought it was the other coach making adjustments and exploiting our weaknesses but nope. They just always get hot against us.
I always thought it was the other coach making adjustments and exploiting our weaknesses but nope. They just always get hot against us.
Look, I don't want to sound like a know it all, or even belittle you. I looked at some of my posts and they sound like that. So, first, if we were talking somewhere, it would not come off like that. I am just having a conversation with you. So, I apologize if anything sounds offensive because that is not my intention. And again I don't want to sound all knowing.
The problem is that if you predict something and back it up with assumptions, you still have predicted it regardless of everything else. If you bet, you have to handicap and take every single thing you are saying into account. It sounds like me that you have not, and your assumptions have been wrong. I will have no excuse if Gonzaga loses. I said they would win it all. If they get upset, I am not going to make excuses on why or say that they would have won a 7 game series, or that the tournament is against them and upsets happen all the time. I took into account all factors.
You cannot make any predictions if you hold true what you say. They are hollow because it is not just one upset, it is one after another of the teams you said held water. If what you are saying is true and upsets happen all the time and the tournament is made for that, then Gonzaga should have been 100 to 1 since of all the catastrophic obstacles that are in their way, as you put it. And yet, making them 2-1 in Vegas shows you that handicappers don't believe in your theories.
I don't get worked up over internet message boards. I appreciate the apology, but it wasn't something that was necessary.
I never predicted anything other than Gonzaga wasn't going to winand nothing that I've seen from them so far leads me to believe anything different. They are not athletic enough and still are susceptible to being muscled around. You for some reason think that I am a big 10 slappy. I don't care about the Big ten. The only point I ever tried to make about the Big ten is that it was not overrated. They clearly have the best teams from top to bottom. Just because they lost a game in the tournament doesn't erase the fact that their teams are better than the other conferences. Ucla are Oregon are the only two teams that you could even remotely say we're better than the teams that lost. Everyone that has played basketball competitively for any length of time has lost to someone that they were clearly better than. It's just the way basketball works.
Sportsbooks are not in the business of predicting who is going to win. They are in the business of trying to make money regardless of who wins. They set the points in spots where they think they can attract the most money on both sides. When one side starts to outweigh the other they adjust those lines. They know going in Gonzaga is everyone's favorite. That's why they lower the odds on them. They could care less if Gonzaga actually wins or not. No matter what they're going to make money.
What is great about a message board is that everything is right there. You said that Ohio State and Illinois were going to make the Final 4. You also said Virginia would be ready for Gonzaga. Well I guess with your reasoning and non results nor facts driven analysis, Virginia was ready for Gonzaga and would have beaten them handily (the lost during the regular season), yet were not ready for Ohio.
Those are just some of your predictions. The worst one is the one that you still stand by regardless of facts and results that the Big 10 is the best conference. A conference that has 9 teams in the tournament, and most extremely high seeds, and yet only 1 can barely advance to the Sweet 16. A conference that has its last national champion over 21 years ago. Yeah, that really make a lot of sense. The Pac 12 gets 4 in the Sweet 16, without the advantage seeding and the Big 10 is a better conference. Wow.
Here are the facts which I stated a long time ago on out of conference comparisons of the top Big10 schools:
Gonzaga played: Kansas, Auburn, West Virginia, Iowa and Virginia. Also scheduled Baylor.
Michigan played: BGSU, Oakland, Ball, UCF, and Toledo.
Illinois played: NC A&T, Chicago, Ohio, got creamed by the only good team Baylor, and Missouri
Ohio State played: Ill St, UML, Morehead, AAMU, Cleveland, UCLA and Notre Dame
Let's look at another WCC team BYU: They played USC, Utah State, Boise State, UTAH, and SDSU. All those are better than any Big 10 out of conference team that the above played outside of UCLA, who got destroyed by SDSU.
And yet, the Big 10 is the best conference. I have finally figured out that you always ask someone else to post proof of their side of the argument, and yet you have only your feelings backing yours up. Therefore, regardless of what is presented in front of you, it does not matter. Hell, I feel the Dallas Cowboys were the best team in the NFL last year based on Dak Prescott having such great numbers in the first 4 games. Surely if he played all year, they would have won the Super Bowl. I know they were 1-3, but come on, why does that matter?
Another misconception you have is on Sports Books. I don't think you really know how they are run. The books are going to lose millions if Gonzaga wins the whole thing. Yes, they do care. They have so many bets on Gonzaga to win the whole thing that they will lose millions. I know 3 guys that do the numbers for the books. Do they need to explain it to you that they have lost millions on the Super Bowl in 2019?
Here is a week where the books lost over 10 million:
Nevada sports books lose $10M on Sunday’s NFL games
Nevada sports books lost between $7 million and $10 million on NFL games Sunday in one of the most lopsided days in state betting history, according to multiple media reports.
www.reviewjournal.com
Of course books don't predict, but by setting the line where they do, they know where the sharp money is going to fall. You are right on how they set the lines, but to say that they do not lose money is ridiculous. They knew Gonzaga was a huge favorite and the probability that they would win the whole thing was great, and therefore, they put a line that was much lower than anyone else. They do not want money on Gonzaga, and if they win, they will lose millions. Anyone under the impression that the books do not take a bath on certain events does not bet on a regular basis.
Do you know that Tampa Bay was the worst case future scenario for the books. They had twice as much liability on Tampa than they did on the Chiefs. The books do lose money. Overall, in the long run, no, but on Gonzaga, they will. So, you are only partly right. And actually, the books would have lost even more had Illinois won. Michigan, Illinois and Gonzaga are worst case scenarios according to my buddies at the books. They will lose a lot if any of those teams win or won.
What is great about a message board is that everything is right there. You said that Ohio State and Illinois were going to make the Final 4. You also said Virginia would be ready for Gonzaga. Well I guess with your reasoning and non results nor facts driven analysis, Virginia was ready for Gonzaga and would have beaten them handily (the lost during the regular season), yet were not ready for Ohio.
Those are just some of your predictions. The worst one is the one that you still stand by regardless of facts and results that the Big 10 is the best conference. A conference that has 9 teams in the tournament, and most extremely high seeds, and yet only 1 can barely advance to the Sweet 16. A conference that has its last national champion over 21 years ago. Yeah, that really make a lot of sense. The Pac 12 gets 4 in the Sweet 16, without the advantage seeding and the Big 10 is a better conference. Wow.
Here are the facts which I stated a long time ago on out of conference comparisons of the top Big10 schools:
Gonzaga played: Kansas, Auburn, West Virginia, Iowa and Virginia. Also scheduled Baylor.
Michigan played: BGSU, Oakland, Ball, UCF, and Toledo.
Illinois played: NC A&T, Chicago, Ohio, got creamed by the only good team Baylor, and Missouri
Ohio State played: Ill St, UML, Morehead, AAMU, Cleveland, UCLA and Notre Dame
Let's look at another WCC team BYU: They played USC, Utah State, Boise State, UTAH, and SDSU. All those are better than any Big 10 out of conference team that the above played outside of UCLA, who got destroyed by SDSU.
And yet, the Big 10 is the best conference. I have finally figured out that you always ask someone else to post proof of their side of the argument, and yet you have only your feelings backing yours up. Therefore, regardless of what is presented in front of you, it does not matter. Hell, I feel the Dallas Cowboys were the best team in the NFL last year based on Dak Prescott having such great numbers in the first 4 games. Surely if he played all year, they would have won the Super Bowl. I know they were 1-3, but come on, why does that matter?
Another misconception you have is on Sports Books. I don't think you really know how they are run. The books are going to lose millions if Gonzaga wins the whole thing. Yes, they do care. They have so many bets on Gonzaga to win the whole thing that they will lose millions. I know 3 guys that do the numbers for the books. Do they need to explain it to you that they have lost millions on the Super Bowl in 2019?
Here is a week where the books lost over 10 million:
Nevada sports books lose $10M on Sunday’s NFL games
Nevada sports books lost between $7 million and $10 million on NFL games Sunday in one of the most lopsided days in state betting history, according to multiple media reports.
Of course books don't predict, but by setting the line where they do, they know where the sharp money is going to fall. You are right on how they set the lines, but to say that they do not lose money is ridiculous. They knew Gonzaga was a huge favorite and the probability that they would win the whole thing was great, and therefore, they put a line that was much lower than anyone else. They do not want money on Gonzaga, and if they win, they will lose millions. Anyone under the impression that the books do not take a bath on certain events does not bet on a regular basis.
Do you know that Tampa Bay was the worst case future scenario for the books. They had twice as much liability on Tampa than they did on the Chiefs. The books do lose money. Overall, in the long run, no, but on Gonzaga, they will. So, you are only partly right. And actually, the books would have lost even more had Illinois won. Michigan, Illinois and Gonzaga are worst case scenarios according to my buddies at the books. They will lose a lot if any of those teams win or won.
Lol, whatever you say bro. You should have bet me some real money on Gonzaga since you knew some much. The Big ten was not overrated they just preformed poorly. If you don't understand the difference, I don't know what else to tell you. You'll just have to argue with someone else.
Since I already told you that Gonzaga vs the field is a sucker's bet, I don't have to explain it twice. Its too bad that all of your teams have been eliminated that would have beaten Gonzaga. I really wanted to take your money.
Well if they already beat Kansas, Auburn, West Virginia, Iowa and Virginia (ACC Champion) before the tournament, and beat the Big East, Pac 12 and Big 12 champions on their way there. Secondly, be the only team since 1976 to go undefeated, I would ask you who is better? They were Number 1 almost the whole year in the polls, which also says the coaches and writers think they are.
Sure, many other years, teams win and may have not been, but not this year.
The best team just had an off night and performed poorly. Upsets happen all the time cuz this game is full of emotions. You would know that if you played competitive ball.
Before you write a book in response, I'm pulling your leg. I hope you could read the sarcasm and not take me seriously.
No, I would have caught that one. But that is the logic that some actually think. I know you pretty well to know you don't think that way. But then again, you are I are Cowboy fans, so we are delusional. LOL
Yes. I’ve watched about 6-7 of their games. They are always on TV.
Early on...maybe mid December after I had seen them play 3-4 times, I posted on here that I was really impressed with their fundamentals and attention to detail. They had a lull in late January and early February where they kinda looked like crap. They hit their stride again as of late, but they are probably at the end of their road.
Gonzaga is a 13.5 point favorite in that game. That is a very big number. The number that looks interesting is Loyola a 7 point favorite over Oregon State. Also the over/under is very low at 125.
I usually root for Texas teams. Not during March Madness.
Do you think that Boeheim can shoot lights out every single night? Also, can Houston pound the ball into the zone? Is Houston a good 3 pt shooting team? The problem has been that West Virginia and SDSU had dreadful 3 pt shooting games. All it takes is for someone to have a decent one and Syracuse will have to get out of the zone and they will get destroyed. I think Houston is that team.
And the way we are going, another team will win before we even get back to the tournament. Sad, but the other Texas teams are improving, while we are stagnant.
I dont think Syracuse gets out of zone defense....ever. I'm not sure how well Houston shoots the 3, but yes they will need a good shooting game to win. Based on the eye test so far though Syracuse wins.
They leave you wide open to shoot 3's. If you hit them, they will have to adjust and come out to defend the perimeter. That leaves them open on the inside. They have not had to do that as SDSU and West Virginia shot piss poor on the outside. Also Boeheim scored half their pts. Now in all fairness, the guy was defended and still shot lights out. I do not see him doing that 3 games in a row, nor do I see Houston shooting as bad as the last 2 opponents. I think Houston wins on that basis.
Now if you are asking me to bet that game, I would stay clear away because what I just said has to happen for Houston to win, and we all know that betting a team to shoot over 45% from 3 pt range is pure speculation. I don't like betting on that kind of stat. Especially when Houston does not have that really big man to pound inside.
Now you see why I would not bet it. The smart bet is taking the pts.
Good points. I’ll add a couple thoughts. UH got the offensive rebound on 43.5% of their missed shot against Rutgers. Syracuse plays that 2-3 zone, which I think will enable Houston to exploit them for another really good offensive rebounding night.
Also, as you mentioned, a good 3 point shooting team will give Syracuse trouble. UH shoots it at 36% as a team. Two of their 3 sharp shooters had very off nights. It is rare that they have two off nights in a row. If Jarreau is at least 90% good to go with his hip injury, I like UH to move on. If they play like they played against Rutgers, it might be a long night.
Similar threads
